Besides they vast majority of people are using monogamous marriage as prescribed by government.

Government recipes are often far from normal.

If in Europe, the guy can not force the wife for sex (so sex is not part of the contract). Husband must keep paying girls already having an affair even though the girl already screw the other guy.

Some people think it’s good obviously because otherwise it won’t be the rule. However, most alternatives are prohibited and such terms are not explicitly stated in marriage vows. Perhaps during marriage vows, the groom should pronounce explicitly that he understand that sex is not part of the contract.

If in iran, for example, some scholars says that husband can beat up her wife. Marriage became a kind of bdsm. Again, I don’t see this as wrong, as long as it’s explicitly stated in the contract and other forms of marriage are equally easy. It’s not.

Just let the market participants make their own marriage contract and all the material aspects of the contract inserted in their marriage contract. Why should government make marriage rules? Why should others interpret what religious marriage means for the couple (or tripple, or quadruple, or whatever)

Some relationship are approved by government and some are not. Why governments decide?

If too much is not allowed, the vast majority of people will follow the only alternatives left, either abstinence or government’ sanctioned marriage. Of course, abstinence is worst than death penalty.

Others will want to kill Puji or Ariel to “defend” monogamy marriage from more efficient alternative. But if all is fine, the institution of marriage as the governments want would not sell. Nothing is left to defend.

It’ll happen anyway under globalization.

If Islam allows marriage with a 12 year old girl, but does not allow others to have concubines, people would see Islam as trying to regulate others. Of course, Islam will have a lot of enemies because people want to be free, especially when they got nukes. But if all other options exist, the enemies are only those opposing freedom.

According to bayesian rule, P(B|A)=P(A^B)/P(A)=P(A^B)/P(B)*P(B)/P(A)=P(A|B)*P(B)/P(A).

So probability of P(B|A) is just the probability of P(A|B) times Probability of B divided by Probability of A. That’s because now we’re dividing by A rather than B. Probability of (terrorist|muslims) is probably 80%. Probability of (muslim|terrorists) is less than 1%. That’s simply because there are way more muslims than terrorists most of which have less violent job. If P(A|B)=1 we have what we call logically B->A

Actually that’s not quite correct. In bayesian theory, P(A|B) means “The probability (degree of confidence) that A is true GIVEN that B is assumed to be true” — not “the probability that B implies A,” or even far worse, Popper’s self-inconsistent “propensity” interpretation that it means the “the probability that B causes A.”

The logical relation B->A has the somewhat counterintuitive boolean representation (not(B and (not A))), which can also be written as ((not B) or A). That is because B->A only demands that when B is true, A must also be true, so ((B=True) and (A=False)) means B->A must be False, whereas if B is false, the implication relationship does not say anything about whether or not A must be true.

Quote

Say B is the probability that a guy is guilty say for mutilating hot babes to pieces with tooth pics. Say A is an evidence that would be true if B is true. Say A is that defendant clothes will be filled with blood. So P(A|B)=1.

Then P(B|A)=P(A|B)*P(B)/P(A)=1 *P(B)/P(A) . Wait a minute. If P(A) is very small than yea P(B|A) should go up significantly. If P(A) is common then it’s circumstantial.

Where does it say that P(B) stuck at 1 once our prior is 1 again? I got to take a look.

That’s not the clearest way of looking at it. Try the example below the following background paragraphs

In bayesian probability theory, all probabilities are conditional on your background information, which consists of the things you assume to be a priori true (your axioms), and whatever empirical data that you have acquired by experience; for short, I’ll write this as the logical predicate “Exp,” for “Experience plus A Priori Assumptions,” or just “E” for short.

Bayesian theory takes it as axiomatic that the probability of a statement that is always False (i.e., a logical contradiction) is zero independent of any condition X, P(False|X) = 0, and likewise the probability of a statement that is always True (a tautology) is unity independent of any condition X, P(True|X) = 1.

Also, you must explicitly specify your “Universe of Discourse” up front, i.e., the set of alternative hypotheses {H1,H2,…,Hn} that you intend to consider. The hypotheses defining the Universe of Discourse are usually taken to be mutually exclusive, i.e., if one hypothesis is true, then all the other hypotheses must be false (this can always be arranged by the logical equivalent of “orthogonalization”), and exhaustive, i.e., no other explanation will be considered. (This latter assumption is not a restriction, since one can always tack on the “catch-all” hypothesis “There is some other explanation that I haven’t thought of yet” — which depending on your degree of humility or arrogance can have an a priori probability that may be quite significant to quite small, as long as it is less than 1 but more than 0.)

Since {H1,H2,…,Hn} are assumed exhaustive and mutually exclusive, exactly one hypothesis must always be true, so it’s taken as an axiom that the logical conjunction H1+H2+…+Hn (“+” means “logical OR”) must be true with certainty, implying that P(H1+H2+…+Hn|X) == 1. Also, since by mutual exclusivity exactly one of the hypotheses can be true while the others must be false, we take it as axiomatic that P(H1+H2+…+Hn|X) = P(H1|X) + P(H2|X) + … + P(Hn|x) == 1.

Since by the first axiom of bayesian probability, P(A + (not A)|X) = 1 for all X, and since only one of A or (not A) can be true, it immediately follows that P(not A|X) = 1 – P(A|X) for all X.

Finally, there is the “chain rule” for factoring joint probabilities into conditionals: P(A&B|X) == P(A|X&B) * P(B|X) == P(B|X&A) * P(A|X). (For readability reasons, this is more often written as P(A,B|X) == P(A|X,B) * P(B|X) == P(B|X,A) * P(A|X), and even to drop the “AND commas” if it won;t result in ambiguity.)

It turns out that the above axioms completely define all of bayesian probability theory, and that from them it’s possible to compute the probability of any statement that can be expressed in terms of the set of hypothesis {H1,H2,…,Hn} and the “background predicate” E representing your axioms and experience. Furthermore, a careful analysis shows that they represent the unique extension of boolean logic to truth-values intermediate between 0 and 1, and that any other set of rules will fail to be consistent with logic. (I’m leaving out some technical details here, as the proof of this theorem turns out to be remarkable subtle.)

Ah I see. So we make P(Something|X) as a new probability universe. Wow I forgot that part of probability when I was in school.

Quote

A number of useful corollaries can be proved from the above axioms, for propositions A, B, and X:

P(A|X,A) == 1, since it’s given that A is assumed to be true, and by definition P(True|X) = 1;

P(A,A|X) = P(A|X), since logically A&A == A

P(B|X,A,A) = P(B|X,A), since logically A&A == A;

P(A|X,B) = P(A|X), since if A and B are logically independent, knowing B tells us nothing about A;

Bayes’ Theorem follows directly from the chain-rule axiom: P(A|BX) = P(B|AX) * P(A|X) / P(B|X). However, this is not the most useful form for reasoning about how to update the a priori probabilities of your hypotheses given new information. Denote your empirical data or new information by the logical predicate “D.” Assume that you also have some “statistical model” that predicts the probability P(D|Hi,E) (your degree of confidence or how “unsurprised” you would be) that you would see data D given your past experience E and assuming that hypothesis “Hi” is true; P(D|Hi,E) is often called the “data likelihood” of hypothesis “Hi.” Bayes’ Theorem allows you to invert P(D|Hi,E) to give the updated or “a posteriori” probability of hypothesis “Hi,” P(Hi|D,E) = P(D|Hi,E) * P(Hi|E) / P(D|E) in terms of the “data likelihood” for “Hi,” the a priori probability P(Hi|E), and a quantity we don’t seem to have, P(D|E), the probability one would observe the data “D” given only our experience, sometimes called the “evidence” provided by the data. However, there is a clever trick: since by hypothesis H1+H2+…+Hn = True, and since P(D&True|X) = P(True|D,X) * P(D|X) = 1*P(D|X) = P(D|X) for all D and X, it follows that:

and now we have expressed P(D|E) entirely in terms of things we know. Hence, bayesian theory allows one to revise one’s a priori probabilities P(Hi|E) to include new data “D” into one set of assumptions and empirical experience “E” if one has a statistical model for estimating the likelihood of observing data “D:”

Great. I see. So P(D|E) will be the probability of D given our natural experience. To know that, we need some a priori (except for E) understanding of what’s likely and what’s not. I get that.

Quote

Code:

P(Hi|D,E) = P(D|Hi,E) * P(Hi|E) / (Sum(k=1..n) P(D|Hk,E) * P(Hk|E))

Note that if the a priori probability P(Hi|E) is zero for some specified “i” (i.e., Hi is a priori false), no amount of data can ever budge it from zero (i.e. false), and that if it’s one (i.e. a priori true), no amount of data can ever budge it from one (i.e. true), since if one P(Hi|E) is one, then all the others must be zero, by the axiom Sum(i=1..n) P(Hi|E) == 1. Hence, one must take an “agnostic” attitude to learn from experience, because if one dogmatically rejects a given hypothesis (or blindly accepts it on faith), no amount of experimental evidence to the contrary can ever alter that a priori probability.

Now for the example: Suppose that you are walking down a street in an arid town, and you notice that the sidewalk in front of a house is wet. From prior experience you know that people tend to sprinkle their lawns about three days a week, whereas it only rains once a week, so a priori you expect that P(Sprinkler|Exp) > P(Rain|Exp), with a priori odds of about 3 to 1. Let’s assume for the moment that you can’t think of any third explanation, so your Universe of Discourse will consist of the two propositions “It was raining earlier,” and “The sprinkler was on earlier.” From experience, you know a priori that P(Wet|Sprinkler,Exp) and P(Wet|Rain,Exp) are both close to unity, i.e., if the sprinkler was on, the sidewalk will probably get wet, and if it was raining, the sidewalk will also probably get wet, but if all the information you have is that one given sidewalk in front of one given house is wet, one can’t say much more than P(Sprinkler|Wet,Exp) > P(Rain|Wet,Exp), since people sprinkle more often than it rains.

Now, suppose you look up and down the sidewalk, and notice that the sidewalks in front of all the houses are wet. From experience, you know that rainstorms seldom rain on only one house while avoiding others, so you suspect that it probably rained — but how confident can you be of that conclusion?

We can estimate the relative data likelihoods using the chain-rule for conditional probabilities:

where “X” is either “Rain” or “Sprinkler,” and “E” is your experience and assumptions.

First, suppose that it rained — then you know from experience that Wet_1 = Wet_2 = … Wet_N; hence, since P(A&A|X) = P(A|X), P(Wet_1 & Wet_2 & … & Wet_N | Rain, Exp) will not be appreciably different from any individual P(Wet_i | Rain, Exp), which is furthermore close to unity; hence, the data likelihood that if it rained, all the sidewalks will be wet is close to unit, in agreement with commons sense.

By contrast, you know from experience that people decide to water their lawns more or less independently, so P(Wet_i|Sprinkler,Exp,Wet_j) = P(Wet_i|Sprinkler,Exp) for all i != j; hence

where the last step assumes that most people water their lawns with about the same frequency. It thus follows that, even if P(Wet | Sprinkler, Exp) is close to unity, it will not take a very large number of houses N before the data likelihood becomes very small — which is consistent with both experience and common sense that it’s unlikely that every resident on the block will water their lawn on the same day (unless it’s extremely hot!).

Plugging these and similar estimates of data-likelihoods for the two hypotheses into Bayes’ Theorem, it’s fairly straightforward to show that, if all the sidewalks are wet, then the a posterior probability for rain becomes quite large, even though the a priori probability of rain was much smaller than for sprinkling.

Conversely, if only one sidewalk is wet and all the others are dry, then sprinkling becomes even likely than rain — although a more careful analysis will convinces you that something odd must be going on, since it’s far more likely that about 3 sidewalks out of 7 would be wet than just one sidewalk out of N.

Finally, if we had included the “catch all” hypothesis that something we haven’t thought of has happened, then in the case that only 1 sidewalk out of N was wet, it would be the “catch-all” that would have gotten the highest posterior probability — even if one had assumed that its a priori probability was small — suggesting that it’s time to re-think your set of hypotheses.

This is very enlightening. Now I start seeing where “faith” kicks in. Once people are convinced that something is true, nothing will shake that believe.

Okay so we have 2 hypothesis. Hr (for rain) and Hs for sprinkler. Say I see that a lawn is wet. Say I come from middle east where rain comes once a year. So I would believe that sprinkler must be on. Now this is close to “faith”. I already believe, with great prejudice that it ain’t rain.

But then I see all the other houses are wet too.

Now let’s see how things work.

Look I will edit this much latter. I need time to think.

I think for simplicity sake, let’s call the first neighbor Wet0

That way we consider only 2 possibilities, rain, or sprinkler (sprinkler 0)

Also for simplicity sake lets’ call

P(A|B W0E) as Pwe (A|B). Where Pwe is the probability measure when E and W is part of the assumption. That should leave all the clutters out.

I think there should be an easier way to see Pwe(R | W1 W2 W3 W4… WN). I’ll come back to this one.

If you’re as rich as Bill Gates, can you make 1000 kids legally?
If you don’t hurt others, why shouldn’t others hurt you?
If you never hurt your enemies, why should they believe you may?
Treat thieves like vermin and they’ll treat us like God, the way we deserve from them!

Well here I mean P () to mean Pwe just to make things shorter. And Pwe is actually P(|WE)

P(W1 W2 W3 … WN|R)=1. Tadaaa. If it’s raining then obviously all the grass will be wet.

What is the probability that all the houses are wet given that it’s not raining? Well that’s the probability that all the houses turn their sprinkler at the same time. Say the probability is the same with P(S)

Independence means

P(W1|S)=P(W1) because W1 do not depend on S. It’s also the same with P(S) for simplicity sake. So everybody has the same probability of running a sprinkler.

P(W1 W2 W3 … WN | S) is a small number. Let’s call it E. I mean if P(S) is 10 and N is 1000, E is like 10^(-1000). That’s how small it is.

So

P(W1 W2 W3 … WN|R)=P(R)/(P(R)+e)

Simplifying we get

P(W1 W2 W3 … WN|R)=P(R)(1/(1+e/P(R))

What does it mean?

If P(R) is small, say 1 thousandth. Given that e is very small P(W1 W2 W3 … WN|R) will still be close to 1.

That depends on the ratio of (1+e/P(R))

However, if P(R) is exactly \0, then P(R)/(P(R)+e) is 0. The small e, even though is close to 0 is still bigger than 0. So faith becomes some form of bayesian anomaly.

Basically as P(R) began to be equal to e, then P(W1 W2 W3 … WN|R) would go to .5. A few more N and it goes back up to 1 again.

That means if you have a doubt, a little doubt, that P(R) is a possibility, your believe will jump to the normal one as enough evidence shows up. As N grows big, and every houses is wet, quite obviously it’s raining.

However, when you believe that there is no rain, no amount of wet houses will convince you that it’s raining. The small probabilities that all the houses run their sprinkler becomes your “belief”.

Now that explains a lot.

There are thousands of proof that morality comes from the interest of whoever makes morality rather than God. Yet, people that are of faith will simply think that their morality comes from God or some higher reasoning besides profit (including libertarians). The small probabilities that explain that away, then becomes their belief. That explains why Christian believes that the bible is divinely inspired. Some even go all the way believing that the king james translation of the bible is divinely inspired. Then some believe that they are guided by Holy Spirit straight despite the fact that the Holy Spirit do not help them to correctly predict stocks or anything verifiable. Also the fact that most people have different faith and hence can’t all be correct doesn’t deter them from believing that somehow they’re luckier. That’s because that’s the only way their faith can be true.

So is faith useful? For who? If you want to know the truth, then always have some doubt. If you want to convince people, then teach them to have faith.

Perhaps libertarian party can pinpoint something BOTH parties are against.

What about,

Legalization of prostitution
Legalization of Marijuana
Eliminate Public School

As GDP said, the median vote theorem only works when issues are not single dimensional. If BOTH parties hate something, there is a second dimension at least.

Just find an issue both sides hate. Put libertarian position in a way that it’ll steal votes from parties that are least libertarian. A small parties with small number of people can stir the world. Ask Jews

Parties do not want libertarian party to “steal” their votes. Remember, every vote counts. It’s close to stalemate here. Even though libertarian party cannot win, it can be a great “king maker.” So, they too will move their position toward more libertarian idea. Or something like that.

Tell voters, that they will vote for Libertarian unless the republican change their stance on this or that. Do some math on people’s demographic and pin point the optimum stand for this kind of game.

Basically the way democracy work is we don’t really pick rulers at the poll. What we do is we change the position of the parties at the poll based on their believe of what we want and their understanding that we can vote. A fine distinction. Your founding father is a genius. It’s not perfect, it’s as good as it gets, at least for now.

-Isn’t that amusing to see how government want to prohibit something but cannot. At least it should give us some picture on what typical voters truly want and what would happen if we give them the power to do so.-

Minister of Culture and Tourism Jero Wacik feel uneasy with the rise of international porn actress who played in a number of national films. If you have the authority to ban, the minister really wants to ban.

”If the firm can, yes I’d love to do it. But in an era like today we can not do it,”said Wacik in convivial event ahead of the Indonesian Film Festival 2010 in Batam, Saturday (27/11) night.

The statement was delivered Wacik associated with the presence of some ‘blue movie actress’ who played in the film Indonesia. Among them was Tera Patrick, Rin Sakuragi, and Pauleen which became another name Maria Ozawa or Miyabi is also a well-known known. The actress has graced the big screen acting nationally so far this year.

Despite not having the authority banned but Wacik tried to work around this through the Film Censorship (LSF). He asserted to conditions prevailing as now, the presence of LSF is very important. Yesterday”that I never submitted to the Constitutional Court because the parties who want LSF dissolved. Well if you like now then I think LSF it should not be dissolved,”he explained.

Through the new Film Law, Wacik also requested that LSF can be more firmly again in the censorship of films that could damage the morale of the nation.

Yes gdp. You’re the smartest mathematician here. I read all those theorems.

Duverger is actually important. That median vote theorem works when we have 2 parties. You see why parties like green parties or hey, libertarian parties, tend to mess things up and push things to the opposite direction as in Bush vs Al Gore? Nader actually push US slightly to the right. And well, Iraq won’t attack itself won’t she?

Arrow and Voting Paradox simply shows how complicated “collective” choice is. I haven’t seen any real sample on that beyond theoretical world though. I don’t think the effect is significant though. The effect would be that normal who you like best voting is not only simplest but would work well 2. On other system where you can rank parties, you would rank your second best as last as strategy to ensure that the first would work. In other word, American voting system can’t be easily improved.

I’ll look that up again.

My main point is, we have enough to promote liberty even when things are far worse than now. In fact, change will be, and perhaps should be, slow anyway. And that’s as good as it gets.

Look at worst case scenario.

What I mean, is, who care, for a while what kind of government we have?

It could be dictatorship, it could be muslims, it could be democracy.

Let’s stop for a while and think. Who care?

Think of government like business. In fact, I see that governing a business is a lot like governing a nation, including the trade off between let my employee (or people) figure out how to do things (tao), or I want to do it this way. Both have plus and minuses.

Now under globalization, whoever is most productive will move to another country. So whoever govern, will have a very strong intensive to govern well.

Perhaps when things go a little edgie, some forces might work. For example, the north abolish slavery because they can simply pay their workers higher due to industrialization. The south keep promoting slaverly. Well, slavery is unfair biz practice because you unfairly lower your cost. So the south got kicked out of WTO and then have intensive to abolish slavery. That sort of thing. Well, war works too actually. If all those black slaves can point gun as well as whites, any countries that insist they should cook soup instead will pay a price.

In fact, the japs easily ended hundreds of years of european colonial rules simply by calling the south east asians “brothers” rather than some sort of sub humans.

On european front, the Nazi pays heavy price for exterminating Jews and Slavs. Lenin is a bad government. But the Slavs united behind him anyway because Hitler wants to exterminate them.

So while not perfect, even in war there is, in a sense, “justice”. The mongols conquer the world mainly because they hire people based on merit and don’t discriminate based on religion. On that area, that barbarians were far ahead of the rest of the world. That’s what I am saying.

Even in US, I’ve heard that the military simply use IQ to hire officers. In civilians life where we can bullshit ourself and still live to talk about it, hiring people based on IQ is simply illegal. Globalization will put pressure toward meritocracy as much as ancient wars. That’s what I am hoping for.

All I am saying is we have seed for freedom. We have enough. As long as we can get the hell out of one country to another, it’ll give pressure for whoever in power to let the market rule.

The reason why people are either pro D or pro R is because they just look that way. R and D wants voters. So they need to use issues that divide. It’s easier for a democrat senator to promote abortion, for example, than to raise tax. Most people are not significantly affected by the tax rate going 2% up or down. A democrat senator would be better spending his money to persuade women with unwanted baby, “You’re off the hook” rather than arguing about tax. On most issues, people are moderate. The bad guys are called extremist because moderates rules democracy.

Question:Why women’s right to abort her baby is more important than women’s right to sell her sexual service on any terms she prefer? On the latter, both democrat and republican opposes prostitution. Of course I know the answer but you guys will disagree with me anyway. Women’s right is never really the issue. Things are not as it seems.

As for Loraine. I think she is smart but too theoretical. Individuals never have right. Right comes from might. Might makes right. Individuals are weak. Yea you can persuade others to defend your “right”. A nice libertarian theory. Those who are very good at that job is called dictators. That’s reality. So states right, or the fact that each countries are independence would works too. Works fine.

This is a mechanism that would speed things up. Ever wonder how western countries often bitch on how Muslims treat their women? Well, beautiful women are the most precious things in the world. The reason why in ALL (not just Arab) countries women are not free is because they’re too precious not to control.

Legalize consensual women immigration and you’ll see all the hot women from arab countries move to Europe.

When that happen, what would all the arab males do? Besides bombing you guys. I mean, say they can’t bomb you. What would they do if all their hottest Afgan girls choose to become sex workers in Europe? You think they still oppose free market? You think any countries would oppose free market if all hot women goes to the richest countries? Think.

[quote author=gdp link=topic=7897.msg35804#msg35804 date=1290612133]
You have twice mentioned the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem]”Median Voter Theorem.”[/url] I suggest you click on the link, and read down to the section on “Shortcomings of the Median Voter Theorem,” which begins with the sentences: “There are many instances in which the Median Voter Theorem may not be applied. Among the most common is the case of preferences which are not single-peaked (multimodal preferences),” and again further down, where it states “When preferences are not single-peaked or the policy space is multi-dimensional (e.g., individuals vote on both taxation and public expenditure), the median voter theorem yields no prediction.”

I submit to you that U.S. Voter preferences are indeed not “Single Peaked” (they are strongly divided between “Pro-R” and “pro-D” voters, with “Independents” not in the majority), and that U.S. “Policy Space” is indeed multidimensional. Therefore, the “Median Voter Theorem” fails on both counts.

I further suggest that you study [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_paradox]Condorcet’s Voting Paradox,[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law]Duverger’s Law,[/url] and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem]Arrow’s Theorem,[/url] so that you may more fully understand the false assumptions underlying your incorrect reasoning.
[/quote]

H. Beatty Chadwick went to 14 years in prison for not paying his money to his ex wife, a money he may not even have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick

Even God Prefer to Have a Son out of Wedlock – corolary of main Christian doctrine

Majority of apostles believe that marriage is not good

His disciples say to him, `If the case of the man with the woman is so, it is not good to marry.’ – Matthew 19:10

Jesus think that hoes go to heaven faster than religious scholars.

Jesus saith to them, ‘Verily I say to you, that the tax-gatherers and the harlots do go before you into the reign of God’ – Matthew 21:31

Sex is not part of marriage contract. Women do not have obligation to have sex with you if you’re married. So think about it if your motivation behind marrying her is sex. At least before marriage she’d better do it if she still wants you to bring home the chocolate and the lobster tails. After marriage, she can just screw some other males and expect you to pay for all that.

Marriage is declining when alternatives are legal. Marriage is declining steadily in western civilization. People just realized they can make better deals outside marriage.

However, not simply because marriage is bad for many means people will stop marrying. People need to find better alternatives (like cohabitation agreement) and then the alternatives will have to be popular first, and then there should be enough people to resist governments’ criminalization of the popular alternatives that’s often happen, like in the case of prostitution or concubine.

Most material marital contracts are not explicitly stated. People sort of agreed to get married on some vague terms like love each other. Government then define what those term really means.

Some governments think that it means, the girl can screw someone else, and the man will have to pay for it. Some government think that it means man can beat up his wife and hence all marriage is a bdsm relationship.

One material term on marriage is the severance pay called alimony:

This law allows the Courts to force an ex-spouse to pay PERMANENT ALIMONY to the other ex-spouse forever, unless the receiver of alimony remarries or dies.

This law was written in 1828 when alimony when most women did not work, did not have careers, and always stayed home caring for the kids.

It does not matter how old you are at time of divorce or if the receiver was working at time of divorce; even a 30-year-old person can be forced to pay alimony forever.

This law has loopholes so big that the alimony recipient can live with a lover and the children, be financially supported by the lover, and still receive alimony as long as the alimony recipient does not remarry. These loopholes encourage the receiver of Alimony to cohabitate with someone and never remarry destroying our family values.

It does not matter if the payer of alimony remarries, he/she still has to pay alimony forever.

All sources of income can be taken away from the payer to pay for alimony, even social security and disability benefits.

This law destroys families as it gives the alimony receiver financial priority over the children of the ex-marriage.

The state of Florida does not force a parent to support children over 18 years of age but it forces them to support an ex-spouse.

Taken from http://wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.2758

For example, FTC says that google money tree is guilty of fraud for not telling people that sign up for free trial that they will be charge $80 per month after that. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/shortchange.shtm

Well,

Google money tree is bad (at least for many). People do not agree to pay $80 per month. There is no way they would agree to pay $80 per month. But somehow they are presumed to agree anyway based on statements not readily available buried deep within TOS.

Marriage is bad (at least for many). Men do not agree to keep paying alimony to girls that are already riding someone else’ cock. Men do not agree to support someone else’ kids. Beatty Chadwick do not agree to pay $2.5 million dollar and prefer to go to jail for 14 years instead of it. But somehow they are presumed to agree anyway based on some statements not readily available buried deep within marital laws.

FTC demands that those terms must be explicitly stated near the OK button.

So why not demand all marriage couple to explicitly agree to support bastard child, keep paying huge alimony, etc. during marital vow? Maybe they’ll reconsider marrying and avoid all the problem.

Marriage is arguably NOT consensual

Many other consensual alternatives are prohibited. There is too few ways rich smart males can commit to support a girl and their child except through marriage. Prostitution is illegal. Cohabitation agreement will most likely be illegal when popular.

Material terms are often not stated clearly.

Information about alternatives is censored. For example, escort is illegal but prostitution is not, effectively making information about paying money for sex scarce. Porn is often illegal.

There are many consensual arrangements that most people would agree too but cannot because unfair laws. For example, most males would prefer to pay salary rather than severance pay. There are many women that prefer salary rather than alimony. There are many women that don’t mind sharing. All those are not popular due to chilling effect caused by anti prostitution and anti polygamy laws.

End governments’ intrusion on marriage.

1. Let people decide their own marriage terms. Keep government out of marriage.

Ah… Because we are used to the status quo that marijuana is illegal. Then we thought, why not legalize and tax it. A moderate approach. Now this doesn’t look like government punishing marijuana smokers. This seems like government allowing marijuana.

Game theory says that the difference between threaten and promise is the status quo. Unfortunately, it’s also the difference between force and consent. The difference is, whose right and whose obligation people have to start with. Once we agree that government has right to run our life, then force does become consent and via versa.

The most obvious way to see this is to see how subsidy is effectively forcing people to accept the subsidy. Subsidy is equivalent with government taxing (fining) everyone that don’t grab the subsidy after giving some money to all equally. So public school is effectively forcing of people to go to public school.

Of course, if we believe that any kids have the right for some decent education, this is not something very strange. Kids right for education effectively means everyone’s else obligation to pay for those. The same way, individuals’ right for freedom, means effectively everybody’s obligation to defend those freedom.

Reasserting my money my right, would solve those dilemma that public schools are indeed force rather than consent.

The same way we are used to the status quo that man pay for women, irrelevant of whether the woman pick him as mate (as the case for welfare checks), irrelevant of whether it is his child (in the case of alimony).

(and hence non consensual and consensual) is just the status quo. If the status quo is men has to pay up anyway to girls. Then prostitution is indeed force because the man, which has no right for his own money, threaten to not pay girls that don’t fuck him. This is the argument that is used by anti prostitution bigot.

There’s some truth in it, I must admit. We simply need to differentiate what’s wrong, from what’s inherently vaque. Again reasserting that man has right for his money would solve the dilemma. The problem is you don’t have right for your own money right? You’re too weak.

Libertarian believes that the status quo is we are all in NAP(non aggression pact) and all of us has obligation to maintain that NAP.
Feminist believe that the status quo is all women are free to choose whoever man they want, and expect every other males to pay for the child regardless of it’s their children or not.
Anarchist (and satanists?) believe that we’re all in free for all status quo and if you want to be free, you either have to stand up for my self, or get people to stand up for you. No body is obligated to help you out of morality sake.

I used to be a libertarian, but I start thinking that the anarchist have some truth in it.

Your right is not always what legislators decide. Your right depends on how much power you have and can expand through politically correct means. For example, a gun hidden on your sleeves, means you have a right to walk on any shady town. No gun, well, proceed at your own risk. Money in off shore bank account, means right over that money.

You’d understand that a woman who raise kids for 20 years, takes care of the household. Which is really fucking hard. While her husband is learning, working, investing, getting promoted. That its a partnership, and all is equal. You dont think she deserves 50% after he dumps her in her 40s for a younger hottie. With no work experience, education in some cases, to start all over.
A contract is only fair. Dont be a bitch and pay up. Sacrifices are made on both sides.

Dude you got the point. However, that’s not the main issue.

Who talks about leaving her? Man just want to have another one. Most girls do not mind. However, the other males mind. You see? That’s the real reason behind those 50% rule. To prevent rich males from getting a lot.

As whether it’s fair or not, why not let the market decide? Fair means salary should be far higher than severance pay. Fair means beauty and performance should decide compensation rather than the man’s wealth.

Exclusivity agreement? Well, only if both side think it’s really important. After all, loyalty is cheapest for those who have no one else to fuck (i.e. doesn’t sale). Many women prefer studs. That’s definitely outside marriage unless marriage can be privatized.

You don’t agree. Fine. Make your own rule. It’s your contract. Why should government be the pimp and make them?

i like the description you gave of ind. it sounds similar to china as well. 🙂 when i looked for my secretary i told her beforehand if she would resist if i wanted her to provide other ‘special’ things hehe.

ha ha ha. In US you can’t do that. Some peee country. Land of the peeeeeeeeeeeeee……

Now I see why people love communism. How else can we abuse our workers and our women? Under capitalism? Think again. Even if prostitution is free, it’s like what, $1k for a massage section done by ugly hoes?

I don’t beat up my wife. I think I should spank her nekkid ass till she do her job better. It’s just that she often hit back . Christians….. In what country does that beardy talk again? What was the religion again? There is a reason why the word hau (good) in china, is women kneeling under a house (sucking cock). Next time, I won’t have a wife. I’ll just have secretaries.

Wooden pony ordered. Honey, look what I bought for you..

Looks like communism has an upside. The best and brightest do not get money, but get something far more important. Powah to oppress the mass. Long live karl marx. Way to go. Great system you have here.

Yea, keep voting for socialism commies. I put up enough with all this socialist nonsense and is going to take advantage of “the game” or whatever you put on my plate. Winners will always be winners anyway.